2013 Global Temperatures

[nzucker]

To be fair, we aren't outside the confidence interval of most GCMs so they aren't invalidated.

 

To be fair on the other side, we are consistently on the low end of predicted warming. And the most recent readings are nearly the farthest from the mean, especially early 2012. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

NCDC comes in at the 6th warmest July (0.61)

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/7

 

 

That brings NCDC to .594C for the year. 

[nflwxman]

What happened to bluewaves post about the PDO and GCMs/climate sensitivity? Thought it was a must read and really explains the stall in global temp rise the last 5 years.

Also, according the graph Phillip posted above, we have only really been much below the GCM ensemble mean since 2008.

[ORH_wxman]

What happened to bluewaves post about the PDO and GCMs/climate sensitivity? Thought it was a must read and really explains the stall in global temp rise the last 5 years.

 

 

He must have deleted it. There's no indication a mod did.

[Cory]

You are glossing over how bad their short term predictions are though...even including the error bars which are barely keeping them within the 95% confidence interval. They are problematic and it hasn't gone unnoticed by the scientific community either. A lot of papers on sensitivity have been coming out using the most recent decade of average global temps in addition to the previous 50+ years and lowering their estimates.

 

So while its important to keep the recent slowdown of warming in perspective, its also important not to shrug it off as merely inconsequential because its "still within the error bars". Clearly the GCMS have some issues which doesn't exclude the possibility that they are too sensitive to CO2.

 

If a discrepancy of this magnitude was expected all along and is no big deal, it makes me wonder why scientists are trying to figure out "where the heat went" and toning down future estimates of warming. If there's no problem, why acknowledge and study one? I'm glad they're looking into it rather than waving it away as "expected all along"..."short term means nothing", though. 

[ORH_wxman]

If a discrepancy of this magnitude was expected all along and is no big deal, it makes me wonder why scientists are trying to figure out "where the heat went" and toning down future estimates of warming. If there's no problem, why acknowledge and study one? I'm glad they're looking into it rather than waving it away as "expected all along", though. 

 

 

I agree.

[AvantHiatus]

If a discrepancy of this magnitude was expected all along and is no big deal, it makes me wonder why scientists are trying to figure out "where the heat went" and toning down future estimates of warming. If there's no problem, why acknowledge and study one? I'm glad they're looking into it rather than waving it away as "expected all along"..."short term means nothing", though. 

When one looks back into the climate record, they are hard-pressed to find datasets that show even 1c of global warming per century. The kind of projected warming that is forecast is simply unprecedented and i'm not surprised it is falling back away somewhat. However, we can assume future warming will continue way beyond what we would consider sustainable for modern living. My greatest fear is that Climate Change will be downplayed and our environmental policies will continue to be unsatisfactory.

 

The best analogy that comes to mind is the frog that does not jump out of boiling water, because the rate of temperature change is undetectable.

[Jonger]

If a discrepancy of this magnitude was expected all along and is no big deal, it makes me wonder why scientists are trying to figure out "where the heat went" and toning down future estimates of warming. If there's no problem, why acknowledge and study one? I'm glad they're looking into it rather than waving it away as "expected all along"..."short term means nothing", though. 

When one looks back into the climate record, they are hard-pressed to find datasets that show even 1c of global warming per century. The kind of projected warming that is forecast is simply unprecedented and i'm not surprised it is falling back away somewhat. However, we can assume future warming will continue way beyond what we would consider sustainable for modern living. My greatest fear is that Climate Change will be downplayed and our environmental policies will continue to be unsatisfactory.

 

The best analogy that comes to mind is the frog that does not jump out of boiling water, because the rate of temperature change is undetectable.

Fossil fuels are finite, my biggest fear is mass starvation and epidemic over not having any source of energy when that day does come and we do run out.

[LakeEffectKing]

Fossil fuels are finite, my biggest fear is mass starvation and epidemic over not having any source of energy when that day does come and we do run out.

When we need more energy, we make more energy....and I'm confident that ALL the technologies out there now (and those in development) will continue to satisfy our thirst....maybe too much so...but that is another discussion.  My fear is that many good young folk like Weatherguy won't enjoy their life to the fullest extent because they are in a constant state of "guilt driven" fear of their own existance.  Such a shame!

[csnavywx]

Taking control, exercising caution and conservation, and taking responsibility for one's actions need not equate with guilt or fear. The fact is, we tend to waste tremendous amounts of resources in an unsustainable fashion under the guise that we will always be able to pull ourselves out of any bind we put ourselves into via technology. We often also waste with little regard to future generations. How much "material stuff" does one person need to be happy? How many people do you think this planet can realistically support over a multi-century/multi-generational time scale (given reasonable and realistic technological advance) without having a deleterious effect on quality of life or quality of environment? I realize I'm drifting towards a more philosophical argument here, but just about everybody's opinion on AGW is shaped by some component of their world view.

 

 

As far as the questions over sensitivity are concerned in this thread:

 

1) Are we realistically looking at the problem? Why has the focus been overwhelmingly on the surface temperature over the past few decades at the expense of talking about the oceans? Over 90% of heat trapped in the Earth system as a whole is via the oceans. Only 3% is via the atmosphere. OHC measurements clearly show that heating has continued apace, so it would behoove us to understand better how the two exchange heat over time as it is clearly not being handled that well via modeling at the moment.

 

2) Are we missing the forest for the trees? While the surface temperature increase is on the lower bounds of estimates, the impacts of higher CO2 and the existing temperature change so far have been quite the opposite (SLR, rainfall, ice melt and pH changes anyone?).

 

3) Paleoclimate evidence for a value of 3C per doubling of CO2 is quite stout.

[LakeEffectKing]

Taking control, exercising caution and conservation, and taking responsibility for one's actions need not equate with guilt or fear. The fact is, we tend to waste tremendous amounts of resources in an unsustainable fashion under the guise that we will always be able to pull ourselves out of any bind we put ourselves into via technology. We often also waste with little regard to future generations. How much "material stuff" does one person need to be happy? How many people do you think this planet can realistically support over a multi-century/multi-generational time scale (given reasonable and realistic technological advance) without having a deleterious effect on quality of life or quality of environment? I realize I'm drifting towards a more philosophical argument here, but just about everybody's opinion on AGW is shaped by some component of their world view.

 

 

As far as the questions over sensitivity are concerned in this thread:

 

1) Are we realistically looking at the problem? Why has the focus been overwhelmingly on the surface temperature over the past few decades at the expense of talking about the oceans? Over 90% of heat trapped in the Earth system as a whole is via the oceans. Only 3% is via the atmosphere. OHC measurements clearly show that heating has continued apace, so it would behoove us to understand better how the two exchange heat over time as it is clearly not being handled that well via modeling at the moment.

 

2) Are we missing the forest for the trees? While the surface temperature increase is on the lower bounds of estimates, the impacts of higher CO2 and the existing temperature change so far have been quite the opposite (SLR, rainfall, ice melt and pH changes anyone?).

 

3) Paleoclimate evidence for a value of 3C per doubling of CO2 is quite stout.

Your points are good ones.  AGW has been the most politicized, thus the strong viewpoints aligning with ideological bents.  That tends to really skew objective thinking, whether we can observe the affect or not, within our own self.  (I.e., we tend to defend our "belief") 

But leave ideology out of it, and you have opinions that align without political tethers. 

 

As to your question of <paraphrase> "how much is too much...?" that is an arbitrary question that really can't be answered very far into the future.  It depends upon so many factors....and the reality is, is that in 500 yrs. (if we were to still be alive) I doubt we would even be able to recognize the human trait, let alone quantify their needs and wants and their abilities to adapt and develop.  As we have in our first half-million years on this planet, we will adjust and adapt to not only our environment (space??), but to ourselves.

 

With respect to the focus on temperatures.....you should ask those that laid out the entire hypothesis to begin with....it was ALL about temperature and it's secondary effects.  Gore's Inconvenient Truth was a portrayal of "an Earth with a fever..."...that was the take home message.  The inconvenient fact is that over the last decade, it has become obvious that additional processes had been "overlooked" and are now being discussed as reasons why we have been in such a temperature stall. 

 

I'm all for creating a new hypothesis when testing (or quasi-testing) of the original hypothesis is starting to fail....but I'm not a fan of just adjusting on the fly to maintain a failing hypothesis...that, IMO, is not science.  And that statement alone is really not completely fair, because it's really only the mouthpieces (political) that hammer the temperature aspect.

[LithiaWx]

[LithiaWx]

Year to Date :

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

The Sub-Surface warming has continued to build.

 

 

 

 

 

Global SSTS are still very warm. 

 

 

 

CFS has cooled slightly.  Good for the short term.

 

The blue over the CONUS is going go vanish.

 

 

[LithiaWx]

The Sub-Surface warming has continued to build.

Global SSTS are still very warm.

CFS has cooled slightly. Good for the short term.

The blue over the CONUS is going go vanish.

The below normal anomalies over the CONUS aren't likely to "go vanish" they have been established over 22 days and won't be erased easily.

[skierinvermont]

Amazing how some people continue to falsely label others "denier" despite being educated many times on what a denier actually is.

 

You failed to actually refute anything I actually said as well. Nothing I said had to do with the 2007 IPCC report. And I certainly have never demanded exact predictions from science - quite the opposite, actually.

 

Take your accusatory, false drivel elsewhere.

 

 

Your statement that "scientists never expected a flatline in temperatures (such as has been witnessed)" is directly contradictory with the 2007 IPCC report, and every other IPCC report. The fact that we are well within the confidence intervals of the models, as shown by the chart Phillip posted, demonstrates explicitly that scientific predictions have always recognized a large amount of unpredictable short term variability. You simply enjoy pretending that scientists never expected short term variability and then claiming that when such variability occurs that it invalidates mainstream science. 

 

Statements of yours such as 

 

"And sure, if you give yourself confidence intervals of .7C (from 13 years ago!), we are still within that 95% range"

 

​are similarly nonsensical. 

 

 

Scientists don't "give themselves" confidence intervals. They are mathematically calculated and derived from uncertainty created by the known unknowns. Predictions from the IPCC reports have had large confidence intervals over short time periods precisely because they recognize a large component of short-term variability.

 

You're just pretending that they "gave themselves" big confidence intervals (just for fun!!!)  without recognizing the large short-term variability. In reality, they "gave themselves" (IE derived) large confidence intervals precisely in recognition of the large short term variability.

 

You're actually directly contradicting yourself when you make fun of how big their confidence intervals are, and then claiming they never recognized natural variability. In short, you are a biased buffoon cluttering up this thread with lies.

[skierinvermont]

You are glossing over how bad their short term predictions are though...even including the error bars which are barely keeping them within the 95% confidence interval. They are problematic and it hasn't gone unnoticed by the scientific community either. A lot of papers on sensitivity have been coming out using the most recent decade of average global temps in addition to the previous 50+ years and lowering their estimates.

 

So while its important to keep the recent slowdown of warming in perspective, its also important not to shrug it off as merely inconsequential because its "still within the error bars". Clearly the GCMS have some issues which doesn't exclude the possibility that they are too sensitive to CO2.

 

Studies which look at 20th and 21st century temperatures to derive climate sensitivity have come up with some lower estimates in recent years. But it is important to recognize the large amount of uncertainty associated with these studies. None of them can rule out climate sensitivities as high as 4C. The recognized uncertainty in climate sensitivity has been broadened from 2-4.5 to 1.5-4.5C.

 

Revising climate sensitivity estimates lower based on 15 years of slow warming is impossible without precisely knowing exactly all of the different forcing agents over that period. Except we can't come remotely close to pinpointing any of the forcing agents over that period other than GHGs and TSI. 

 

Can you provide precise exact estimates of radiative forcing over the last 15 years for:

 

aerosols?

ENSO?

PDO?

Indirect solar effects?

Other natural variables?

 

Unless you can do that, changing climate sensitivity estimates based on the last 15 years of data is impossible. 

[LakeEffectKing]

Studies which look at 20th and 21st century temperatures to derive climate sensitivity have come up with some lower estimates in recent years. But it is important to recognize the large amount of uncertainty associated with these studies. None of them can rule out climate sensitivities as high as 4C. The recognized uncertainty in climate sensitivity has been broadened from 2-4.5 to 1.5-4.5C.

 

Revising climate sensitivity estimates lower based on 15 years of slow warming is impossible without precisely knowing exactly all of the different forcing agents over that period. Except we can't come remotely close to pinpointing any of the forcing agents over that period other than GHGs and TSI. 

 

Can you provide precise exact estimates of radiative forcing over the last 15 years for:

 

aerosols?

ENSO?

PDO?

Indirect solar effects?

Other natural variables?

 

Unless you can do that, changing climate sensitivity estimates based on the last 15 years of data is impossible. 

Can you provide exact estimates for the above DURING the time "scientists" came up with sensitivity of 2.0-4.5??

[CoastalWx]

Your statement that "scientists never expected a flatline in temperatures (such as has been witnessed)" is directly contradictory with the 2007 IPCC report, and every other IPCC report. The fact that we are well within the confidence intervals of the models, as shown by the chart Phillip posted, demonstrates explicitly that scientific predictions have always recognized a large amount of unpredictable short term variability. You simply enjoy pretending that scientists never expected short term variability and then claiming that when such variability occurs that it invalidates mainstream science. 

 

Statements of yours such as 

 

"And sure, if you give yourself confidence intervals of .7C (from 13 years ago!), we are still within that 95% range"

 

​are similarly nonsensical. 

 

 

Scientists don't "give themselves" confidence intervals. They are mathematically calculated and derived from uncertainty created by the known unknowns. Predictions from the IPCC reports have had large confidence intervals over short time periods precisely because they recognize a large component of short-term variability.

 

You're just pretending that they "gave themselves" big confidence intervals (just for fun!!!)  without recognizing the large short-term variability. In reality, they "gave themselves" (IE derived) large confidence intervals precisely in recognition of the large short term variability.

 

You're actually directly contradicting yourself when you make fun of how big their confidence intervals are, and then claiming they never recognized natural variability. In short, you are a biased buffoon cluttering up this thread with lies.

 

I think you need to relax for a minute. While maybe not the best choice of words...he more or less was speaking to Will's point about scientists trying to explain why we seem to be slow regarding warming as compared to GCMs.

[ORH_wxman]

Studies which look at 20th and 21st century temperatures to derive climate sensitivity have come up with some lower estimates in recent years. But it is important to recognize the large amount of uncertainty associated with these studies. None of them can rule out climate sensitivities as high as 4C. The recognized uncertainty in climate sensitivity has been broadened from 2-4.5 to 1.5-4.5C.

 

Revising climate sensitivity estimates lower based on 15 years of slow warming is impossible without precisely knowing exactly all of the different forcing agents over that period. Except we can't come remotely close to pinpointing any of the forcing agents over that period other than GHGs and TSI. 

 

Can you provide precise exact estimates of radiative forcing over the last 15 years for:

 

aerosols?

ENSO?

PDO?

Indirect solar effects?

Other natural variables?

 

Unless you can do that, changing climate sensitivity estimates based on the last 15 years of data is impossible. 

 

 

Nope. I agree with you on the large uncertainty. But the uncertainty ranges have been bringing lower sensitivities back into play that were previously outside of many study's confidence intervals.

 

I know there was a paper recently that showed a model or two in the ensemble suite that would have periods of 15 years without warming...at least one of them twice in the 21st century. But those solutions also showed rises between 1.4-2.0C by 2100. Not the higher end estimates of 3-4C. This doesn't mean the sensitivity has to be lower, maybe it just takes a lot longer than many thought to reach it. But that is an important detail since much of the policy discussion WRT AGW is based on high TCR. The IPCC's central projections are for a large majority of the warming to be in the TCR which is why they forecast like 2.8C of warming in the 21st century for business as usual scenario. If their sensitivity is still correct, then their TCR might be way off.

 

This is what the thread I started on climate sensitivity and timing last year was discussing.

[tacoman25]

Your statement that "scientists never expected a flatline in temperatures (such as has been witnessed)" is directly contradictory with the 2007 IPCC report, and every other IPCC report. The fact that we are well within the confidence intervals of the models, as shown by the chart Phillip posted, demonstrates explicitly that scientific predictions have always recognized a large amount of unpredictable short term variability. You simply enjoy pretending that scientists never expected short term variability and then claiming that when such variability occurs that it invalidates mainstream science. 

 

Statements of yours such as 

 

"And sure, if you give yourself confidence intervals of .7C (from 13 years ago!), we are still within that 95% range"

 

​are similarly nonsensical. 

 

 

Scientists don't "give themselves" confidence intervals. They are mathematically calculated and derived from uncertainty created by the known unknowns. Predictions from the IPCC reports have had large confidence intervals over short time periods precisely because they recognize a large component of short-term variability.

 

You're just pretending that they "gave themselves" big confidence intervals (just for fun!!!)  without recognizing the large short-term variability. In reality, they "gave themselves" (IE derived) large confidence intervals precisely in recognition of the large short term variability.

 

You're actually directly contradicting yourself when you make fun of how big their confidence intervals are, and then claiming they never recognized natural variability. In short, you are a biased buffoon cluttering up this thread with lies.

 

1. The 2007 IPCC report obviously came well after the projections I was referencing, from 2000 and earlier.

 

2. For you to claim that the ongoing flatline of temps since the early 2000s was expected by scientists before it happen is simply not true. Read the material from the 1990s by the most prominent climate scientists. To pretend like nothing unexpected is going on is extremely misleading.

 

3. My point about the very large confidence intervals is that just because we have still barely stayed within the 95% confidence intervals does not prove that observation is matching previous expectations.

 

4. Enough with the name-calling. You only hurt your position by stooping to the level of calling others "buffoons" and the like. Try to discuss things like an adult, please.

[LakeEffectKing]

1. The 2007 IPCC report obviously came well after the projections I was referencing, from 2000 and earlier.

 

2. For you to claim that the ongoing flatline of temps since the early 2000s was expected by scientists before it happen is simply not true. Read the material from the 1990s by the most prominent climate scientists. To pretend like nothing unexpected is going on is extremely misleading.

 

3. My point about the very large confidence intervals is that just because we have still barely stayed within the 95% confidence intervals does not prove that observation is matching previous expectations.

 

4. Enough with the name-calling. You only hurt your position by stooping to the level of calling others "buffoons" and the like. Try to discuss things like an adult, please.

And the insight we gained from the climategate emails, suggest just that....a "travesty" that "they" cannot account for the lack of warming....from back in '09....now add 4 more years of travesty....

 

[Msalgado]

And the insight we gained from the climategate emails, suggest just that....a "travesty" that "they" cannot account for the lack of warming....from back in '09....now add 4 more years of travesty....

 

 

If thats what you gained from the climategate emails then you didn't read the conversations within their proper context.  

[nflwxman]

And the insight we gained from the climategate emails, suggest just that....a "travesty" that "they" cannot account for the lack of warming....from back in '09....now add 4 more years of travesty....

Pretty sure that's out of context. But I digress. It seems relatively simple if you look at OHC between 0-2000m. Global warming doesn't appear to have slowed down at all- the heat is

just being distributed downward during this negative PDO. There are many studies that point this out- one of which bluewave pointed out earlier this year.

Being skeptical is great, but the data is right in front of us in ARGO. It seems pretty clear cut to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Like ORH eluded to above, It mighy be less a question of climate sensitivity and more a question of timing. If the PDO is truly a strong enough to dampen surface warming for a decade, then maybe the IPCC should shift there projections a decade or two later? The science is fascinating. However, the truth is it doesnt matter if we are 2.2 or 2.5 degrees warmer in 2100. It's still a huge problem anyway you slice it.

[ORH_wxman]

Pretty sure that's out of context. But I digress. It seems relatively simple if you look at OHC between 0-2000m. Global warming doesn't appear to have slowed down at all- the heat is

just being distributed downward during this negative PDO. There are many studies that point this out- one of which bluewave pointed out earlier this year.

Being skeptical is great, but the data is right in front of us in ARGO. It seems pretty clear cut to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Like ORH eluded to above, It mighy be less a question of climate sensitivity and more a question of timing. If the PDO is truly a strong enough to dampen surface warming for a decade, then maybe the IPCC should shift there projections a decade or two later? The science is fascinating. However, the truth is it doesnt matter if we are 2.2 or 2.5 degrees warmer in 2100. It's still a huge problem anyway you slice it.

 

 

It does matter though if we are only 1.4C warmer or something in 2100 versus projections of double that. One is is actually considered pretty benign and the other a big problem.

 

So if sensitivity is on the lower end of estimates (say 2.3C for example) and TCR is only like 60-70% of the warming, then that is a drastic difference between the other higher end projections.

 

Its an important question to answer.

[skierinvermont]

Nope. I agree with you on the large uncertainty. But the uncertainty ranges have been bringing lower sensitivities back into play that were previously outside of many study's confidence intervals.

 

I know there was a paper recently that showed a model or two in the ensemble suite that would have periods of 15 years without warming...at least one of them twice in the 21st century. But those solutions also showed rises between 1.4-2.0C by 2100. Not the higher end estimates of 3-4C. This doesn't mean the sensitivity has to be lower, maybe it just takes a lot longer than many thought to reach it. But that is an important detail since much of the policy discussion WRT AGW is based on high TCR. The IPCC's central projections are for a large majority of the warming to be in the TCR which is why they forecast like 2.8C of warming in the 21st century for business as usual scenario. If their sensitivity is still correct, then their TCR might be way off.

 

This is what the thread I started on climate sensitivity and timing last year was discussing.

 

Another important point is that I think all of those ensemble members are being forced with the same radiative forcings. None of them take into account potentially larger aerosol emissions than those in the scenarios being fed into the models. We don't even know how much aerosols were emitted historically either.

[LakeEffectKing]

If thats what you gained from the climategate emails then you didn't read the conversations within their proper context.

  

Pretty sure that's out of context. But I digress. It seems relatively simple if you look at OHC between 0-2000m. Global warming doesn't appear to have slowed down at all- the heat is

just being distributed downward during this negative PDO. There are many studies that point this out- one of which bluewave pointed out earlier this year.

Being skeptical is great, but the data is right in front of us in ARGO. It seems pretty clear cut to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Like ORH eluded to above, It mighy be less a question of climate sensitivity and more a question of timing. If the PDO is truly a strong enough to dampen surface warming for a decade, then maybe the IPCC should shift there projections a decade or two later? The science is fascinating. However, the truth is it doesnt matter if we are 2.2 or 2.5 degrees warmer in 2100. It's still a huge problem anyway you slice it.

The out of context argument in this case is weak, imo. It took a lot of explanation and some unique definitions of travesty to garnish a more warmer friendly version of his words....

[The_Global_Warmer]

The North Pacific has blown up again.

 

This is locking in at least a 2-3 month period of near record warmth. 

 

August is month one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The peak this year has been a bit stronger and longer than last year.  And without ENSO help.  If enso warms a bit we might end up around the .30C mark for a while.  That would extend the warm months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

display plot oiv2.ctl ssta 1 03jan2012 to 14aug2013

 

[bluewave]

It does matter though if we are only 1.4C warmer or something in 2100 versus projections of double that. One is is actually considered pretty benign and the other a big problem.

 

So if sensitivity is on the lower end of estimates (say 2.3C for example) and TCR is only like 60-70% of the warming, then that is a drastic difference between the other higher end projections.

 

Its an important question to answer.

 

Yeah, I actually think that the slower rate of warming in the more recent papers taking the PDO into account

looks more reasonable. That rate of change by 2100 would be easier to adapt to than some of the

faster projections out there.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110918144941.htm

 

The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.

[LithiaWx]

August continues to cool from a peak mid month the CONUS remains well below average.